Equating Jesus to fiction is irrational

[Tart]

For the past few years I have been seeing nonbelievers equate Jesus to any fiction of their choice. They say "Jesus is like Spider-man", "James Bond is just as real as Jesus", "We have the same about of evidence for King Arthur as we do for Jesus", etc... The list goes on and on.

So I want to give you guys a chance to prove this, if you believe these things.. I am willing to actually take these claims, and see if they can be justified, by comparing the evidence of any fiction of myth, to that of Jesus.. The historical evidence...

I am convinced that there is more historical evidence for Jesus then there is for ANY known fictional and/or mythological person. But i am willing for anyone to prove me wrong, and justify these comparisons.

For the purpose of discussion:
What fictional or mythological person is comparable to Jesus (bring your evidence)? Is there any fictional people who have the magnitude of historical evidence that Jesus does?

(and id allow anyone to question the validity of the evidence as well)

Does anyone really think Jesus should be equated to any fictional/mythological person?


If not, maybe we should stop making these claims...

[William]

[Replying to post 41 by Tart]

This is the historical evdience i am talking about, like an overview that can be expanded on...

Do you think any specifics of the evidence is invalid? Why?

What specifics are you speaking about? Paul's letters? How are these evidence of anything other than Paul's beliefs about Jesus, and what is to say he wasn't simply infiltrating the movement to change it from within as his tactic to murder the followers of the movement wasn't working?

It is hearsay, rather than evidence, which is the point most are making with great (and I would think wasted) effort to try and assist you to understand this.

You would of course be far better off presenting the non-biblical sources you claim exist as evidence which would corroborate the stories told. Most folk are not arguing the existence of Jesus - only the over the top stories attached to the character as mythology.

But the main point of course is your obvious reluctance to understand what evidence actually is. There is a great reason why Paul spoke about faith because this was very necessary in regard to the complete lack of evidence to back the stories. Without the preaching of faith in what was being told was the actual truth, Paul wouldn't have been able to get his religion off the ground and prepared for Romes eventual takeover of it.

But I am satisfied it is not your intention of thinking about things without faith. It is your intention to continue to conflate faith with evidence, which certainly makes you a follower of Paul and his mythological take on Jesus.

It is for that reason that I am happy not to waste any more time with this thread.

[Tart]

Ya, so that would work if we wanted to appeal to authority...But lets not do that...

I never appealed to authority. Just read The End of Biblical Studies for a lot of evidence that makes Arthur as historical as King David.

What is the evidence for King Author?

We have the Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, the Historia Regum Britanniae, and the Legends of the saints all sources that mention Arthur. So Tart, please move the goal posts out of range. Remember: your salvation depends on a historical Jesus.

Out of range? Im trying to get the historical merit of King Author from you... I want you guys to prove me wrong, justify comparing Jesus to fiction is actually rational... Do i have to somehow pry the evidence out of you? What is historical about King Author?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 41 by Tart]

This is the historical evdience i am talking about, like an overview that can be expanded on...

Do you think any specifics of the evidence is invalid? Why?

What specifics are you speaking about? Paul's letters? How are these evidence of anything other than Paul's beliefs about Jesus, and what is to say he wasn't simply infiltrating the movement to change it from within as his tactic to murder the followers of the movement wasn't working?

It is hearsay, rather than evidence, which is the point most are making with great (and I would think wasted) effort to try and assist you to understand this.

You would of course be far better off presenting the non-biblical sources you claim exist as evidence which would corroborate the stories told. Most folk are not arguing the existence of Jesus - only the over the top stories attached to the character as mythology.

But the main point of course is your obvious reluctance to understand what evidence actually is. There is a great reason why Paul spoke about faith because this was very necessary in regard to the complete lack of evidence to back the stories. Without the preaching of faith in what was being told was the actual truth, Paul wouldn't have been able to get his religion off the ground and prepared for Romes eventual takeover of it.

But I am satisfied it is not your intention of thinking about things without faith. It is your intention to continue to conflate faith with evidence, which certainly makes you a follower of Paul and his mythological take on Jesus.

It is for that reason that I am happy not to waste any more time with this thread.

Thanks for the reply William, its good to talk with people who are questioning the evidence presented...

Lets allow your idea of Paul to be true, you are claiming Paul had ill intentions in becoming Christian... Right? So Paul existed, he wrote the Epistles, but perhaps lied about his sincerity...

So when Paul talked of Peter, James, Mark, and Luke... Its certainly believable these people existed... Right?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 51 by Tart]

And comparing that to the historical evidence of Jesus... When you claim you can manipulate any evidence to serve your needs, that isnt a very good thing you should confess to. That is "cognitive biases" you are suggesting to do...

Not when I'm being upfront and honest with what I'm doing. I'm admitting to you that I know for a fact Spiderman doesn't exist...yet my plan is to take the very same evidence you put forth for Jesus (or plan to put forth) and show that the very same type of evidence you give me for Jesus can be used to show Spiderman exists.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by Tart]

So lets start at the evidence... As far as i have seen, all scholars agree that Paul existed, even Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier confess this.. The biggest critics of a historical Gospels agree, Paul existed and Paul wrote his Epistles... (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colosians, Ephesians, etc..)

Margaret Mitchell existed. Does that mean the key characters she wrote about in Gone With The Wind were real people? Stick to extra-biblical, verified evidence for the historical Jesus.

Ok here is archaeological evidence backing up Paul existed, and was on trial, talked about in the book of Acts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

So we all believe (becuase of reasons like this) Paul existed, and wrote his Epistles... Do you agree? Why not?

I've got the strangest feeling I've internet-slapped you over pointing to the Delphi Insciption before as evidence for Paul.
If not you, then someone else.

Please READ THE VERY THING YOU ARE CITING and tell me WHERE IT MENTIONS PAUL.

What you have just done is the equivalent of showing the graduation of a lawyer from Harvard Law School and then claiming this talks about his defense of Darth Vader.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 31 by bluethread]

All very well bluethread, but Yeshua is not just some ordinary person from history. There is an awful lot hanging on whether the biblical character was real or not.

Absolutely there is a lot hanging on whether Jesus existed or not... When studying the evidence, if they actually take the subject seriously, His existence itself is testimony to God... It is hard to get around it without seriously deluding yourself... This is probably why some people flat out deny His existence, like Dr. Richard Carrier for example. He is so convinced that the Gospels have such a deeper meaning then the surface, that it has to be a myth... He builds his entire argument on that focus... But that is the claim of the Gospels.. That the message Jesus brought indeed has a deeper message, that he fulfilled a destiny of God to establish that deeper message...

If we allow Jesus to be historical. His existence itself, his trail, his death, is a fulfillment of a divine plan... And being the fact that it is irrational to deny that there is a huge magnitude of historical evidence, so much so that no fictional person ever has had this amount of evidence. Period...

Jesus existence itself establishes an All Powerful, and All Knowing God exists. And therefor give evidence to the Resurrection.

But thats off topic... Can anyone prove the existence of Jesus is even questionable? In the very least, can anyone show it is reasonable to believe that Jesus can even be compared to anyone fictional?

Iv never seen any good justification for that... Is any known fictional person anywhere close to comparing to the evidence of Jesus?

What you argue here is circular. You need an all powerful God, one able to defy the natural law that dead bodies stay dead, in order to have a resurrection. Yet you use this resurrection to prove your God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 58 by Tart]

So lets start at the evidence... As far as i have seen, all scholars agree that Paul existed, even Dr. Robert Price and Dr. Richard Carrier confess this.. The biggest critics of a historical Gospels agree, Paul existed and Paul wrote his Epistles... (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Colosians, Ephesians, etc..)

Margaret Mitchell existed. Does that mean the key characters she wrote about in Gone With The Wind were real people? Stick to extra-biblical, verified evidence for the historical Jesus.

Ok here is archaeological evidence backing up Paul existed, and was on trial, talked about in the book of Acts...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_Inscription

So we all believe (becuase of reasons like this) Paul existed, and wrote his Epistles... Do you agree? Why not?

I've got the strangest feeling I've internet-slapped you over pointing to the Delphi Insciption before as evidence for Paul.
If not you, then someone else.

Please READ THE VERY THING YOU ARE CITING and tell me WHERE IT MENTIONS PAUL.

What you have just done is the equivalent of showing the graduation of a lawyer from Harvard Law School and then claiming this talks about his defense of Darth Vader.

To show Tart the fallacy he's doing, I could find a record from Harvard Law School that mentions a one Barack Obama, and then claim this supports the existence of Spiderman. Remember earlier when I linked to an issue of the comic where Obama features?
If Tart wishes for me to drop this, I will gladly do so. If and only if he does the same: drop the Delphi inscription since it itself doesn't mention Paul.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 87 by rikuoamero]

Ya so the Delphi Inscription is identifying a person Paul was tried by. This actually gives a timeline for Paul's actions in the Book of Acts.. Scholars (mind you every biblical scholar i have ever seen, even the top "Jesus myth" scholars all agree Paul existed) have been able to use evidence like this to establish a year Paul was tried by Gallio. All the Biblical scholars use this evidence to help establish a timeline for Paul's life. Thus this is archaeological evidence that helps establish the historical reality of the life of Paul... They all agree, that this evidence helps determine the reality of the Book of Acts.

So listen man, Im not interested in you showing you can manipulate evidence to serve your biases... Im interested in the truth. I am interested what is objectively true with the historical merit of the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Epistles...

That said... We should agree Paul existed.. Period... Im not interested in you playing games in trying to show the evidence for Paul can be twisted.. No one believes Paul didnt exist... No one... Not a single scholar i have ever seen... Zip. Zero. Nadda...

So surely you dont believe Paul didnt exist. Right?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 87 by rikuoamero]

And just FYI... The evidence is outlined in post 24 and post 42... Which we can get more into specifics... This is the historical evidence as I see it, which id allow people to question any specifics of it... Is Spider man comparable to the evidence?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 87 by rikuoamero]

Ya so the Delphi Inscription is identifying a person Paul was tried by. This actually gives a timeline for Paul's actions in the Book of Acts.. Scholars (mind you every biblical scholar i have ever seen, even the top "Jesus myth" scholars all agree Paul existed) have been able to use evidence like this to establish a year Paul was tried by Gallio. All the Biblical scholars use this evidence to help establish a timeline for Paul's life. Thus this is archaeological evidence that helps establish the historical reality of the life of Paul... They all agree, that this evidence helps determine the reality of the Book of Acts.

So listen man, Im not interested in you showing you can manipulate evidence to serve your biases... Im interested in the truth. I am interested what is objectively true with the historical merit of the Gospels, the Book of Acts, and the Epistles...

That said... We should agree Paul existed.. Period... Im not interested in you playing games in trying to show the evidence for Paul can be twisted.. No one believes Paul didnt exist... No one... Not a single scholar i have ever seen... Zip. Zero. Nadda...

So surely you dont believe Paul didnt exist. Right?

If you look at the inscription, it indeed does not mention paul. THis is the statement (including resconscrution)

Tiber[ius Claudius Cae]sar Augustus Ge[rmanicus, invested with tribunician po]wer [for the 12th time, acclaimed Imperator for t]he 26th time, F[ather of the Fa]ther[land...]. For a l[ong time have I been not onl]y [well-disposed towards t]he ci[ty] of Delph[i, but also solicitous for its pro]sperity, and I have always guard[ed th]e cul[t of t]he [Pythian] Apol[lo. But] now [since] it is said to be desti[tu]te of [citi]zens, as [L. Jun]ius Gallio, my fri[end] an[d procon]sul, [recently reported to me, and being desirous that Delphi] should retain [inta]ct its for[mer rank, I] ord[er you (pl.) to in]vite well-born people also from [ot]her cities [to Delphi as new inhabitants....][4]

It does establish a date for pro-council Gallo, who is mentioned in acts.. but that is assuming the Paul exists, and the account in acts is valid. It just is something that would give a time frame for the events in Acts, if those events actually happened.

However, that would have nothing to do with Jesus being true or not, just relating to the time frame Paul would have had some claimed events associated with him. It would have nothing to do with the truth of Paul's writings either.